It’s fucking unregulated CAPITALISM, you twits.
this post was submitted on 13 Jan 2024
81 points (95.5% liked)
Climate - truthful information about climate, related activism and politics.
5044 readers
745 users here now
Discussion of climate, how it is changing, activism around that, the politics, and the energy systems change we need in order to stabilize things.
As a starting point, the burning of fossil fuels, and to a lesser extent deforestation and release of methane are responsible for the warming in recent decades:
How much each change to the atmosphere has warmed the world:
Recommended actions to cut greenhouse gas emissions in the near future:
Anti-science, inactivism, and unsupported conspiracy theories are not ok here.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Non-capitalist countries despoil their environment in pursuit of economic growth too.
Blaming the behaviour of individual people is a strategy employed by the oil industry to shift the blame. I wonder who's funding these scientists... Yes, the individual should try to shift their behaviour, but claiming the majority of the blame rests on each of us is nonsense when the richest 1% of people are responsible for more emissions than the poorest 50% of people is pretty disingenuous if you ask me.
You're really missing something here. Just because the richest 1% are responsible for more emissions than the poorest 50%, doesn't mean that the poorest 50% are somehow better people just because of that. They're just in a situation where they are literally unable to pollute as much because of their lack of resources.
I strongly believe that if you took a random sample of "poor people" and put them in the exact situation of "rich people", they'd be polluting roughly the same. Many poor people I meet would love to "be rich", and not just because they'd have their basic needs covered, but because they'd love the luxury, which is what's causing the pollution disparity.
Calling this a human behavioral crisis is exactly on point. Yes, in the current class division, if rich people changed their behavior, their impact on pollution would be much larger. But if theoretically we all had the same resources, and everyone would use these resources for luxury stuff, net pollution would likely be the same as if wealth was concentrated in a smaller amount of rich people, since the resources are still used to produce more than we need. If there are more people on Earth than Earths natural regeneration rate can sustain, we'd still be in trouble with an equal society.
Obviously there are already people that understand this and try to not consume too many resources. People are different and thus some are more/less part of the problem. I would also agree that on average, more poor people understand this than rich people. But still, in total, humans are still pretty much the same no matter the class they currently belong to.
I do understand that, I think you're missing something here. I said "Yes, the individual should try to shift their behaviour", so yeah I agree with you. What I'm saying is that lobbyists for the ultra wealthy try to shift all of the guilt and blame onto the individual as a distraction from more important causes.
There you are, right on cue. Remember folks, you don't have to change, this is someone elses fault. Keep consuming. Technology will save us. There's no overshoot and no population too high. We just have to tell the companies we buy from to be more green whilst continuing to buy their products. They're sure to change their behaviour any day now.
People in companies are part of exactly the same population. Companies are not some separate entity acting by themselves, they are still, in total, controlled by "normal people" (of course, narcissists and psychopaths rise to the higher positions...). Almost everyone in this system is employed in some company that uses the resources this is about, and is theoretically able to control their work there.
If all people would change, then necessarily all companies would change, since they only act on people's will. So this is not some consumer-vs-producer thing. Most people are consumers as well as producers by the fact of working for some producer.
An interesting read, but the solution of using our media to influence human behaviour into being pro-ecology ain't gonna work unless being sustainable is equally as profitable which it cannot be because sustainability is ultimately linked to less consumption of primary resources which is, contrarily, one of the biggest drivers for economic growth.
One thing the article highlights rightly is that all this focus on renewables should be secondary to humanity needing to simply consume less. It's a change we can make within a generation and would be far more impactful than any technological advances or deliberate population control.
Any idea how it could be possible for humanity to consume less?
Perhaps we need public campaigns from influential figures advocating for minimalism and simplicity. Or some sort of deeply spiritual second Renaissance...
First things first: make planned obsolescence illegal.
The vast majority of consumer products are designed to fail earlier than they have to, leading to a shitload of needless waste over which consumers have no real control.
Also, continue to limit single use plastics. Single use anything, but especially plastics.
And of course, phase out all uses of fossil fuel and derived products as viable alternative materials and processes become ready.
There are historical examples of this happening for some resources (eg: forests in Japan)
… need public campaigns…
Eh, no. We need actions not more virtue signaling and telling others they should be the first to start. If you want public figures to be involved there’s only one thing they can do, lead by example.
Fight the next war, not the last war.
The authors suggest the best strategy to counter overshoot would be to use the tools of the marketing, media and entertainment industries
The last one led to enormous backlash, in case nobody noticed. It certainly can be done, but it needs to be approached by a good artist, not a good political activist. Those are simply not the same skillset, which is highly noticeable in the final product. So, if you're not like, really, really good at your artistic medium, find someone who is and let them write the script. Just trust them when they say the message is in there, it may be couched in a way too complex for you to see without the same training and experience they had.
That first one is where the real money is. Nobody can actually fight advertising, except by disconnecting from it completely. If, by way of example, De Beers can convince everyone that diamonds are part of romance with a marketing campaign, then the same tool can probably undo it. Don't expect De Beers to take that laying down though, they have money and lawyers.
I.E. using psychological triggers to make you spend your money.